This guide is intended for the search chair, search committee and hiring manager. Using agreed upon criteria among the search committee, the search chair in collaboration with the hiring authority/manager’s HR Professional or HR Associate, should lead in developing the criteria chart. This can be used to evaluate applicants' skills and qualifications. Effective and appropriate use of a criteria chart makes the screening process more objective, systematic and effective. The selection criteria in the chart must be carefully defined and directly related to the requirements of the position. Listed below are examples of  what can be included when preparing a criteria chart.

• Educational requirements
• Years of experience requirements (note - it is important to consider that professionals earlier in their careers can possess qualifications that will make for a successful candidate)
• Most important job duties or responsibilities of the position
• Most critical technical skills or competencies required for the position
• Most critical interpersonal skills required for the position
• Commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion
• Demonstration of leading diverse teams 
• Professional affiliations
• Veteran status: Eligible veterans status must be taken into consideration, consistent with state and institutional policy, where the applicant meets the minimum/ required qualifications for the position. See details in the Veteran's Preference Guidelines. 

Exercise discretion when using criteria charts, and do not not “rank” candidates or assign them a numeral value. It is also important to note that not all evaluative criteria should be weighted equally. For example, a specialized degree may not be “equal” to years of experience. It is advised to evaluate candidates based on areas of perceived strength related to the position description, areas of perceived weakness related to the position description and areas where more clarification on the candidate’s skills and qualifications can be provided. Review sample evaluation tools. 

Throughout the search, the chair and support should make sure to retain documentation containing:

• Major criteria used to select applicants beyond initial screening;
• Major criteria used to select finalists for interviews;
• Major criteria used to select the successful applicant;
• Specific reasons for rejection of candidates interviewed but not selected.

Ensure all documents that are retained contain factual job related information; not opinions or preferences of the committee which are not rooted in fact. 

This guide is intended for the hiring manager, search chair and search committee. It will be helpful to utilize this document when building out screening matrices or leading candidate evaluation screening meetings. 

To ensure that applicants are evaluated with diversity in mind, remember to be open minded about:

• Interruptions in degree programs or work careers
• The reputation of degree-granting or employing institutions. Institutional reputation alone, however well deserved, should not preclude consideration of applicants from other schools
• Careers that started in or include government, business, voluntary service, or other non-academic settings, which are often sources of first time employment for women, minorities, veterans, and persons with disabilities. Consider the value and transferability of skills and experience acquired in these varied settings.
• Stereotyping (myths and first impressions)
• Desiring to “clone” your ideal employee or the current incumbent
• Relying on opinions and not facts
• Evaluating candidates prematurely

When evaluating candidates, be aware of the following:

• Gendered adjectives (“Dr. Sarah Gray is a caring, compassionate physician with patients” –vs. – Dr. John Gray has been very successful with his patients”) 
• Doubt raisers or negative language (“although they have not been in the field very long” or “while not the strongest interviewer, they are very qualified for...”) 
• Potentially negative language (“They require only minimal supervision” or “They are totally intolerant of overly verbose emails”)   
• Hedges (“They respond well to negative feedback”)

Based on: Trix & Psenka , 2003; Schmader, Whiteh

Below, please find a framework for evaluating knowledge and experience with diversity, equity and inclusion. This can help guide other ways you think about evaluating around diversity, inclusion, and equity.

Did not express strong knowledge

• Little expressed knowledge of, or experience with, dimensions of diversity that result from different identities. Defines diversity only in terms of different areas of work or different nationalities, but doesn't discuss gender or ethnicity/race. Discusses diversity in vague terms, such as "diversity is important for our work." May state having had little experience with these issues because of lack of exposure, but then not provide any evidence of having informed themselves. Or may discount the importance of diversity.
• Little demonstrated understanding of demographic data related to diversity in higher education or in their discipline. May use vague statements such as "the field of Finance definitely needs more women."
• Seems uncomfortable discussing diversity-related issues. May state that they  "just hasn't had much of a chance to think about these issues yet."
• Seems not to be aware of, or understand the personal challenges that underrepresented individuals face in the professional setting, or feel any personal responsibility for helping to eliminate barriers. For example, may state that it's better not to have outreach or affinity groups aimed at underrepresented individuals because it keeps them separate from everyone else, or will make them feel less valued.

Expressed some knowledge

• Individuals receiving this assessment will likely show aspects of both “Did not express strong knowledge” and “Expressed strong knowledge.” For example, they may express little understanding of demographic data related to diversity, and have less experience and interest in dimensions of diversity, but show a strong understanding of challenges faced by individuals who are underrepresented and the need to eliminate barriers, and be comfortable discussing diversity-related issues.

Expressed strong knowledge

• Clear knowledge of, experience with, and interest in dimensions of diversity that result from different identities, such as ethnic, socioeconomic, racial, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural differences. This understanding can result from personal experiences as well as an investment in learning about the experiences of those with identities different from their own.
• Is aware of demographic data related to diversity in higher education. Discusses the underrepresentation of many groups and the consequences for higher education or for the discipline.
• Has comfort discussing diversity-related issues (including distinctions and connections between diversity, equity, and inclusion), both in writing, and in a job talk session and one-on-one meetings with students, staff, and faculty.
• Understands the challenges faced by underrepresented individuals, and the need for all students and faculty to work to identify and eliminate barriers to their full and equitable participation and advancement.
• Discusses diversity, equity, and inclusion as core values that every faculty member should actively contribute to advancing.

Source: UC Berkeley